EHll 
.87f 



E 421 
.B79 

Copy * ON APPOINTMENTS TO OFFICE. 



\ 



SPEECH 



HON. J. W. BRADBURY, OF MAINE, 

h 

DELIVERED 



IN SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, JANUARY 



15, 1850. 



The following resolution bein» under consideration 



Resolved, That the President be requested to cause to be laid before the Senate all charges 
which have been preferred or filed in any of the departments against individuals who have been 
removed from office since the 4th day of March last, with a specification of the cases, if any, in 
which the officers charged have had opportunity to be heard, and a statement of the'number of 
removals made under each department, including subordinates in the custom-houses and other 
branches of the public service, — 

Mr. MANGUM said : As I regard this resolution, in its operation, a total 
subversion of former practice, and as it is, in my judgment, a gross invasion of 
constitutional authorities and rights, and of executive duties, I move sir as a 
test vote, that the resolution lie upon the table, and upon that motion ask for 
the yeas and nays. 

The question having been stated on the motion to lay on the table, the yeas 
and nays were ordered ; and being taken, resulted — yeas 23, nays 29, as follows : 

YEAS— Messrs. Badger, Baldwin, Bell, Berrien, Clarke, Clemens, Cooper, Corwin, Davis 
of Massachusetts, Dawson, Dayton, Greene, Mangum, Miller, Morton, Phelps, Seward, Smith 
Spruance, Underwood, Upham, Wales, and Webster — 23. 

NAYS — Messrs. Atchison', Borland, Bradbury, Bright, Butler, Chase, Davis of Mississippi 
Dickinson, Dodge of Iowa, Dodge of Wisconsin, Douglas, Downs, Felch, Hamlin, Houston' 
Hunter, Jones, King, Mason, Norris, Rusk, Sebastian, Shields, Soule, Sturgeon. Turnev' 
Walker, Whitcomb, and Yulee— 29. b *' 

So the resolution was not laid upon the table. 

Mr. BRADBURY then said : 

Mr. President: The resolution before the Senate is one of inquiry a reso- 
lution calling for information ; and I must be permitted to express my surprise 
that it should excite opposition, and especially the kind of opposition it has 
encountered. 

The resolution asks the President for information, not opinions. It seeks 
information which he has made necessary for us, in the honest and faithful dis- 
charge of our official duties, and which we can appropriately ask of him without 
trenching upon his constitutional rights. Such is the precise character of the 
resolution ; and I will proceed at once to the consideration of these positions. 

The President has rendered this information necessary. 

No one can have forgotten that General Taylor, previous to his election 
pledged himself to act independent of party in the discharge of the hio-h duties 
of Chief Magistrate of the Union, should he be elevated to that exalted station. 
His leading friends made similar declarations. They announced that he would 
act irrespective of party distinctions, and would never be found " the supporter 

Fnnted at the Congressional Globe Offic*. 



2 

of that infamous system of proscription which distributes the public offices of the 
country as the spoils of victory." 

There can be no occasion to refresh the memory of gentlemen upon this point. 
I think it is very well understood ; and I will refer to but a few of the numerous 
letters of the President and speeches of his friends. The first which I shall read 
s an extract of a letter from General Taylor to the editor of the Morning Signal, 
dated May 18, 1847. He says: 

" In no case can I permit myself to be the candidate of a party, or yield myself to party 
schemes." 

In his letter to Dr. Bronson, dated August 10, 1847, declining any party 
nomination, is the following declaration : 

" I have thus given you the circumstances under which only can I be induced to accept the 
high and responsible office of President of the United States. I need hardly add that I cannot, 
in any case, permit myself to be brought before the people exclusively btj any of the political parlies 
that now so unfortunately divide our country, as their candidate for this office." 

In his letter to a citizen of Lansingburg, New York, published in the Troy 
Daily Post, he says : 

" But I will not be the candidate of any party or clique ; and should the nation at large seek 
to place me in the chair of the Chief Magistracy, the good of all parties and the national good 
would be my great and absorbing aim." 

The celebrated letter to Capt. Allison contains the following explicit decla- 
ration : 

"First. 1 reiterate what I have often said : I am a Whig, but not an ultra Whig. If elected, I 
would not be the mere President of a party. I would endeavor to act independent of party domi- 
nation. I should feel bound to administer the Government untrammeled by party schemes." 

And he further says : 

«' I have no private purposes to accomplish — no party projects to build up — no enemies to 
punish — nothing to serve but my country." 

To Mr. Muhlenburg, president of a Democratic Taylor State Convention nomi- 
nating him as a Democratic candidate for the Presidency, November 25, 1847, 

he writes : 

" The resolutions of the meeting have given me great pleasure and satisfaction, as the expression 
of high respect and consideration from the people of Pennsylvania." 

On the same day his response to a Whig nomination says : 

" I have read the resolutions adopted by the meeting with great pride and pleasure." 

To the no-party nomination of a meeting at Baltimore, he responds : 

" The political sentiments embraced in the preamble and resolutions adopted at that meeting, 
I rejoice to say, meet my cordial approval and assent;" and " I must be permitted to add, that 
as they have, with so much confidence, placed my name in nomination before the country on their 
own responsibility, free from party action and the exaction of pledges from myself, I shall serve 
them strictly as a constitutional, and not as a party President, (in the event already alluded to,) 
and as my ability will permit." 

One of the resolutions which was so cordially approved is in these words: 
" 4. Resolved, That the platform of the Constitution, upon which General Taylor stands 
before the people, guarantying equal rights to all, furnishes a sure and ample basis upon which 
all our fellow-citizens, whether known as Democratic or Whig, Native or Naturalized, may unite in 
his support, and participate in the benefits of good government under his administration." 

It is unnecessary to make further references. Those which I have presented 
are sufficient for my purpose. 

The distinguished friends of General Taylor made similar declarations on his 
behalf. I will refer first to that of Mr. Crittenden, recently a member of this 
body from Kentucky, whose influence probably contributed more than that of 
any other individual to secure his nomination at Philadelphia. He declared, in 
the presence of a public meeting, in reference to the President's sentiments upon 
the subject of removals : " He hates, loathes proscription." 

I call attention to another declaration made on his behalf. The honorable 
Senator from North Carolina, [Mr. MangumJ who, to my surprise, just moved 



to suppress inquiry, by laying the resolution before the Senate upon the table, 
in his speech in the Senate, July 3, 1848, is reported thus : 
" In reference to the maxim ' to the victors belong the spoils,' he denounced it with unutterable 



scorn. 



Such was the language of the Senator, as reported. 

Mr. MANGUM, (in his seat.) I still hold the same opinion. 

Mr. BRADBURY. I am most happy to learn that the honorable Senator 
still retains the same opinion ; and I regret to find that he arrays himself in 
opposition to the resolution under consideration. I trust that when he finds the 
pledges which he gave, have been violated, the Senator will not suppress the 
expression of his " unutterable scorn." 

Another distinguished friend of General Taylor, the present Secretary of 
State, in his speech in the Senate, July 5, 1848, declared: 

" General Taylor is not pledged to carry out every principle and measure which have been' 
advocated by the Whigs. He comes into the field, and he trusted he would come into the Pres- 
idency, not as a party man." 

Mr. Clayton further declared — 

«« That he will not be the toot of a party; that he will be the President of the people; that he haa 
no enemies to punish, no friends to reward ; that while he will do his duty in removing corrupt, or 
incompetent, or unfaithful men from office, he will not be a supporter of that infamous system of 
proscription which distributes the public offices of the country as the spoils of victory." 

Here we have authoritative declarations covering the whole ground : not 
a party man — no enemies to punish — no friends to reward — no countenance to 
the " infamous system " of proscription ! Such were the declarations of General 
Taylor and his leading friends previous to his election. 

He accepted alike Democratic nominations, Whig nominations, and no-party 
nominations. The abolitionist and the most ultra-slavery extensionist could unite 
on him. The good of all parties was to be most mysteriously secured in his 
person. Democrats, as the honorable Senator from Delaware avowed, could 
vote for him without any inconsistency. He" was the follower of Jefferson. 
Whigs could sustain the disciple of Adams and Hamilton. The Native Americans 
claimed him as their candidate, and the credit of his first efficient nomination. 
The Free Soil Whigs of the North were to be satisfied with the endorsement of 
the sentiments of the Morning Signal and the South with the pledges which his 
interest and locality secured to them. It was under these circumstances, and 
with the pledges to which I have referred, that General Taylor was borne into 
the Presidency upon the tide of his great and justly-deserved military renown. 
He occupied a different position from that of other candidates for that high office, 
who were his competitors at the Philadelphia Convention. They could present 
no such varied claims. They could make no such pledges and professions. 
They were conspicuous members of a political party whose principles were well 
understood, and they could not claim to place themselves independent of party. 
His great competitor from the West never hesitated to make the avowal to the 
people of the country, "I am a Whig" And the distinguished statesman from 
the North, who stood in the same position, gave the same response. 

On ontering upon the discharge of the responsible duties of the high position 
to which he had been elevated, he renewed, in the most imposing manner, the 
pledges that had been made in relation to the subject of appointments and 
removals. In his Inaugural address, delivered in the presence of the vast multi- 
tude who had - assembled to witness the ceremony, and sent forth to the American 
people as the great political chart by which his administration was to be gov- 
erned, he made the solemn official declaration of the principles by which it 
should be guided. It is in these words: 

" The appointing power vested in the Preside .t imposes delicate and onerous duties. So far 



as it is possible to be informed, I shall make honesty, capacity, and fidelity, indispensable 
prerequisites to the bestowal of office; and absence of either of these qualities shall be deemed suffi- 
cient cause for removal. " 

Mark the language ! How emphatic and significant ! It is from a President 
who desired to soften the asperities of party, and who had pledged the word 
of a soldier never to yield himself to party schemes. He specifies the causes 
for removal under his administration. They are dishonesty, incapacity, and 
unfaithfulness. These are all. He states no other; he intimates no other. 
"Expressio unius est exclusio alterius ;" the specification of one is the exclu- 
sion of all others. This is the common-sense interpretation of the language — 
the fair and honest construction of it. How preposterous to assume that it could 
be regarded as meaning that, while he should remove one officer for the causes 
specified, there was in his mind another cause, not named, for which he intended 
to thrust out thousands 1 The supposition would be unjust to the President. 
It would imply duplicity and deception, which 1 do not impute to him. I 
believe he intended to make good his assurances. 

This official declaration of the President, after he had taken the oath of office, 
is, under the circumstances, equivalent to a declaration in advance, applying to 
each case of removal, under his administration, that is made for want of honesty, 
capacity, or fidelity in the officer removed. The charge is in an official docu- 
ment, from the highest source, and carries with it all the sanction which official 
station can give. 

Now, sir, how has this pledge been fulfilled ? Is it not notorious that, while 
it yet lingered upon the lips of him who uttered it, a sweeping system of removals 
commenced, which has been steadily carried forward, until it has swept over 
State after State, and extended to the remotest corners of the Union ? Men of 
the purest virtue, upon whose character no stain was ever fixed before — men 
who were regarded by all who knew them as eminently possessing honesty, 
capacity, and fidelity — were numbered amongst the proscribed. Upon all these 
victims the imputation is cast of " moral or official delinquency." To mark the 
case more strongly, and to prevent the possibility of a doubt, the organs of the 
party came out and indignantly repelled the idea that these removals were for 
political opinions or political causes, and asserted that they were for the causes 
specified in the inaugural address, and that any other supposition would do gross 
injustice to the President. 

I read from the Daily National Whig, of June 6, 1849, published in this city. 

The article is in answer to a proposition of the Union, that, if the Whig press 

would come forward and acknowledge that the pledges and professions upon 

the subject of proscription, made by General Taylor and his friends, had been 

violated, and that Democrats were removed because they were Democrats, and 

not because they had been guilty of official or moral misconduct, no more should 

be heard from the Democratic press upon the subject of proscription per se: 

"The proposition of our contemporary is btised upon a false assumption, and therefore cannot 
be acceded to. It assumes that General Taylor has violated his pledges that he would not 
proscribe men for their political opinions. Now, we deny that he has violated his pledges in 
this respect, and we defy the production of evidence to the contrary. Our neighbor will point to 
the announcements of removals of Democrats from office, which have been made by the public 
press, as sufficient proof of the allegation. These are no proof at all, except of the facts which 
are made by the announcements themselves. It is entirely an inference, that the parties removed 
were proscribed for their opinions; and it is a violent inference, too, in the face of the declaration 
in the Inaugural, that capacity, fidelity, and integrity, should be the only standard by which men's 
pretensions to be retained in or appointed to office shall be measured or weighed. The pledge of the appointing 
poxcer, who has made this declaration in the most solemn manner, is surely entitled to more confidence 
than the passionate and hasty-drawn inferences of the opponents of the appointing power. It 
is much more reasonable to believe that General Taylor does not violate his inaugural promise, 
than that he does violate it. The probabilities that he keeps his word, at least, are on his side, and 



against the presumptions of his opponents to the contrary. The nation will sooner believe that 
General Taylor is executing his office in the matter of appointments upon the basis of his inaugural 
pledge, than put any faith in the bold and groundless assertions of the Union, and its political 
contemporaries, that he is executing it in violation o.f that pledge. General Taylor is, in the 
nature of things, entitled to more credit than his opponents can be, upon the general principle of 
credibility, and particularly when the latter's assertions are the. fruit of mere inferences. 

" We say that the Union's proposition is based upon a false assumption, and the Union knows 
the fact, if it knows anything, or has any concern for the truth. It is fully aware of the utterly 
corrupt and inefficient condition of the Federal official corps, if it is aware of anything whatever. It 
knows that the whole body of civil Federal officers is obnoxious, more or less, to the charge of 
either want of entire capacity to discharge the public trusts, or very loose ideas and notions of 
official integrity, or an absence, in a greater or less degree, of that fidelity to the public service 
which is the crowning glory of every public servant." 

Here, sir, we have it repeated, while the work was going on, that the 
removals were made in consequence of the " moral or official delinquency " of the 
officers removed, and not for political reasons. It is openly affirmed by papers 
th.at assumed to be organs of the party in power. 

Now, sir, I ask if, in view of all these facts, a response to the resolution is not 
due to our fellow-citizens, upon whose character a stain is thus attempted to be 
fixed ? We know it is unjust to them. After expelling them from office, it was 
not necessary that their fair fame should be tarnished. 

It is due also to the President, who, unless he has adopted the spoils system as 
the great and distinguishing feature of his administration, has been imposed upon 
by a general system of libeling — by the filing of fictitious charges against Dem- 
ocrats who were in office, to procure their removal. Unless we presume a viola- 
tion of all the pledges and professions of the President and his friends on this 
subject, we are forced to the conclusion that this system has been pursued. 

But, sir, are we at liberty to presume a violation of all these pledges? His 
organs assure us we are not. If, then, this scheme of getting up fictitious 
accusations has been resorted to, the inquiry arises, by whom has it been done ? 
For whose benefit was it that such a practice should be pursued ? " Cui bono ?" 
Who had an interest in doing it? Those manifestly who expected to profit by 
it. No other persons could be benefited by such a course of procedure. It may 
turn out, upon a response to the resolution, that, in some cases, those whose 
names will come before us, as nominees to the places thus vacated, will be found 
to have been engaged in this business. And I submit that such a fact would be 
one that must have an influence upon every honorable mind in its action upon 
such a nomination. I will suppose a case: A man deliberately engages in 
getting up and presenting false charges against an officer, in order to procure a 
removal, and is successful, and obtains a nomination for the place : if, when his 
name is presented for our approval, the evidence of his conduct should be fur- 
nished with it, should we not feel the information to be pertinent and important ? 
There can be but one response to the interrogatory. 

I trust that I have succeeded in showing to the satisfaction of the Senate, that 
the information sought by the resolution is necessary for us in the faithful dis- 
charge of our official duties. As a part of the appointing power, we have a right 
to the information in the possession of the President, touching those matters in 
regard to which we are called upon to advise with him. How can we perform 
understandingly this advisory duty without it? Appointments are made by and 
with the Senate's advice and consent. By the term advice, I understand some- 
thing more than mere consent. Consent is the acquiescence of the mind to 
what is proposed by another. Advice implies the suggestion or recommenda- 
tion of something to be done or some course to be pursued. The judgment is 
called into exercise, and that judgment must be informed by the facts bearing 
upon the subject. In the early days of the Republic, it was the practice for the 



President to meet the Senate, and confer personally in the transaction of business 
in exec utive session. Such, at least, was the usual course with President Wash- 
ington. 

Bui, however desirable and important I might deem the information sought, 
I would not press for it, were there any constitutional impediment in the way of 
asking it at the hands of the Executive. There is no such impediment. The 
Senate is entitled to the information, and it can be demanded without trenching 
npon any of the President's constitutional rights. The Senate is a part of the 
appointing power. When a nomination is made, the appointment must be with 
its advice and consent- The power of removal is not conferred upon the Presi- 
dent by any express grant in the Constitution ; and the position I maintain is, 
that this power is not so under the absolute, exclusive, and unlimited control oj 
the President, that it cannot be regulated or inquired into by Congress. On the 
contrary, both branches of Congress have asserted the right on various occasions, 
and different Presidents have recognized it. If Congress can, by an act, regu- 
late or inquire into the exercise of this power, it is because it is within the scope 
of its constitutional authority, and is not confided by the Constitution to the 
President's illimitable control. If it is not thus confided to the President, the 
Senate can inquire into its exercise, upon precisely the same grounds that Con- 
gress can regulate and control it. That Congress can do this, I apprehend no 
one will question. 

I beg leave here to detain the Senate by reference to precedents sanctioning 
the principle for which I contend. The Journals of the Senate contain abund- 
ant evidence of the recognition by different Presidents of the right of the Senate 
to go behind the nomination, and seek information touching its propriety, and 
the reasons for making it. I refer, first, to a case under. President Washington, 
in 1789, to show the views entertained by the Father of his Country. The 
Senate had rejected the nomination of Benjamin Fishbourn for Naval Officer of 
the port of Savannah. Washington sent in another nomination for the place, 
accompanied with a message, in which he says : 

'■'■ Whatever may have been the reasons which induced your dissent, I am persuaded 'they 
were such as you deemed sufficient. Permit me to submit to your consideration, whether, on 
occasions where the propriety of nominations appear questionable to you, it would not be expedient 
to communicate that circumstance to me, and thereby avail yourselves of the information which led 
me to make them, and which I would with pleasure lay before you. Probably my reasons for 
nominating Mr. Fishbourn may tend to show that such a mode of proceeding, in such cases, 
might be useful. I will, therefore, detail them," &c. — {Vide Ex. Jour., vol. I, p. 16.) 

Here we have the views of one of " the earlier Presidents " — nay, Washington 
himself — on this subject. He regarded it not only the right, but the duty of the 
Senate to possess itself of the information which led to nominations. His 
authority should be conclusive with those who profess to take him for an example ; 
and, following his example, the President must respond to our call. 

There are many nominations, the propriety of which may appear question- 
able; and we have the high authority of Washington, that we should avail 
ourselves of the information which led to their being made. 

Mr. BERRIEN. Will the Senator allow me to ask whether the informa- 
tion communicated by General Washington related to the nominations of 
individuals to office, or the removals of individuals from office? 

Mr. BRADBURY. It was in relation to an individual who had been nom- 
inated, and who had been rejected. 

Mr. BERRIEN. As I understand the Senator, General Washington stated 
to the Senate of the United States that, when they were considering the pro- 
priety of his nominations, it might be advisible for them to ask for the informa- 
tion upon which he had made the nominations — not the information upon which 



he bad made the removals, for that was not the subject of controversy between 
the President and the Senate. 

Mr. BRADBURY. The honorable Senator from Georgia will understand 
that I endeavored to show that, unless the President has violated his previous 
declarations, not to make removals except for cause — which we are not at liberty 
to presume — unfounded charges must have been fabricated and preferred against 
many officers who have been removed ; and as no persons would have an interest 
to do this, except those who hoped to obtain their places, the inference arises 
that some of the nominees, whose names will come before us, may have lent 
themselves to this business, and thereby shown their want of qualities essential 
to a public officer; therefore, the information which we seek is information which 
may, and probably will, in some cases, affect the nominations upon which we 
shall be called to act. 

I continue the extracts from the Journal, some of which w r ill have more or 
less direct bearing upon the question raised: 

" 1789, August 20. — The President gives his reason for making a nomination at a particular 
time." — (Vide same, p. 20.) 

" 1789, August 22. — The President attended the Senate in their chamber, and had a full and 
free conference with them, preparatory to entering into treaties and arrangements with the 
Indians," &c. — (Vide same, p. 22.) 

" 1790, February 9. — The President asks the advice of the Senate before entering into a corre- 
spondence or negotiation with Great Britain." — (Vide same, pp. 36,37.) 

" 1797, May 31. — John Adams, President, states his reasons for making certain nominations." 

" 1808, February 19. — Thomas Jefferson, President, nominated William Hull." 

" 1808, February 26. — The Senate passed a resolution calling upon the President to cause to 
be laid before the Senate certain papers in relation to the conduct of the said Hull." 

" 1808, March 1. — The President complied with that resolution by laying the papers before 
the Senate." 

" 1814, March 10. — The nomination of Charles Wollstoncroft being under consideration, 

" Mr. Bibb, of Kentucky, submitted the following motion: 

" Resolved, That the Senate do not advise and consent to the appointment of Captain 
Charles Wollstoncroft, to be a major in the first regiment of artillery in the army of the United 
States; because the said proposed promotion is irregular, and not according to the established 
rule of promotion. 

"And on the question to agree thereto, it was determined in the affirmative — yeas 23, nays 8." 

The Senate here look beyond the question of the mere fitness of the nominee, 
into the propriety of the nomination. 

«' 1822, April 10.— On motion of Mr. Pleasants, 

"Resolved, That the Secretary of the Navy be instructed to communicate to the Senate, as soon 
as practicable, information on the following points : In what situations, and for what reasons, 
acting appointments of officers are made in the Navy Department; whether it is common for such 
appointments to extend beyond a session of Congress; whether an officer placed by an acting 
appointment in an advanced grade, receives the pay and emoluments of such grade; and whether 
such officer, nominated to the Senate, and rejected, will revert to his prior rank and station." 

" 1822, April 15. — A letter was received from the Secretary of the Navy, in compliance with 
the above." 

' 1830, April 5. — Mr. Barton submitted the following motion; which was considered, and 
agreed to: . 

"Resolved, That the President of the United States be requested to transmit to the Senate any 
record or other information in the Department of War, or before the President, respecting the 
conviction of Wharton Rector of any crime in Missouri, before his departure for Arkansas, or 
touching; his fitness for the office to which he has been nominated; and any other evidence in 
the Department relative to the fitness of Wharton Rector for the office of Indian agent." 

"April 12. — The President (Gen. Jackson) complied with the above resolution, by transmitting 
a report, &c, from the Secretary of War." 

"April 12. — Mr. Burnet submitted the following motion; which was considered, and agreedto: 

"Resolved, That the President of the United States be requested to lay before the Senate any 
communications now in the Department of State, touching the character, conduct, orqualifications 
of John Hamon, made while the said Hamon was an applicant for reappointment to the office 
of marshal for the district of Ohio, in the year 1822." 

"April 27, 1830. — The above resolution complied with by the President." 

In 1822, President Monroe nominated Mr. Gadsden as adjutant general, and 
Messrs. Towson and Fenwick as colonels, and the Senate looked behind the 



8 

nominations into the question of superseding ; and although it appeared that the 
nominees were gallant officers, fully competent for the stations for which they 
were named by the President, they were not confirmed. Messrs. Gadsden and 
Towson were rejected, and the nomination of Mr. Fen wick was then withdrawn. 

On the 10th of April of that year, the Senate adopted a resolution instructing 
the Secretary of the Navy, amongst other things, to communicate, in Executive 
session, " in what situations, and for what reasons, acting appointments for 
officers in the Navy Department had been made." 

In 1826, the Senate passed, without objection, a resolution calling "for any 
information tending to show the propriety of sending a minister to Panama." 

In 1839, March 2, the House of Representatives adopted a resolution request- 
ing the President to lay before that House " a list of all the officers of the Gov- 
ernment who derive their appointments from the nomination of the President and 
concurrence of the Senate, who have been removed from office since the 3d of 
March, 1789; denoting in such list their number and grade, and the dates of 
their respective removals ; also, a like list of the names of those officers who, 
their terms of service being limited to four years, were not re-nominated to the 
Senate at the expiration of their commissions." 

President Van Buren responded to the call, and furnished the information 
requested. 

On the 16th of July, 1841, the House made a similar call upon President 
Tyler, by a resolution requesting him to lay before the House "a list of all the 
officers of the Government, who derived their appointment from the nomination 
of the President and the concurrence of the Senate, who have been removed 
from office since the 4th of March last, denoting in such lists their names and 
grades, and dates of their removals, and the appointed persons in their places ; 
also, a like list of the names of those whose terms of service being limited to 
four years, were not re-nominated to the Senate, and a like list of the names of 
those nominated in their place ; that he also report the names of all officers 
removed, under similar circumstances, from the 4th of March, 1829, to the 4th 
of March, 1841." 

To this call, also, the President responded, and thus recognized, in the amplest 
manner, the right of the House to make it. 

The great question of the power of removal, by the President, of officers 
appointed by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, has repeatedly 
engaged the attention of Congress. It came up in the first Congress under the 
Constitution, in 1798, and was much debated in that body. It arose upon a 
resolution offered by Mr. Madison, "that there shall be established an executive 
department, to be denominated the Department of Foreign Affairs, at the head 
of which there shall be an officer, to be called the Secretary of the Department 
oi» Foreign Affairs, who shall be appointed by the President, by and with the 
advice and consent of the Senate, and to be removable by the President." After 
protracted debate, it was finally settled, as the sense of the majority, by the 
adoption of the resolution, that the President possessed the power of removal 
under the Constitution. This decision was made in opposition to a very deter- 
mined minority, who insisted that the Constitution conferred no such power on 
the President, but, on the contrary, withheld it. 

In 1826, a select committee was raised in the Senate, of which the distin- 
guished Senator from Missouri near me [Mr. Benton] was chairman, to whom 
was referred a proposition to inquire into the expediency of reducing the patronage 
of the executive department of the United States. The committee, having given 
the subject consideration, made a report, at a subsequent day in the session, 



9 

marked with great ability. The authority of Congress to regulate by law, and 
control the patronage of the Executive, was assumed as an indisputable proposi- 
tion. Amongst the bills reported by that committee was one which contained 
the provision "that in all nominations made by the President to the Senate, to 
fill vacancies occasioned by an exercise of the President's power to remove from 
office, the fact of the removal shall be stated to the Senate at the same time that 
the nomination is made, with a statement of the reasons for which such officer 
may have been removed." 

Mr. DAWSON, (in his seat.) Did that bill pass? 

Mr. BRADBURY. It did not. I refer to the bill as an expression of 
the opinion of the distinguished Senators who constituted that committee, in favor 
of the power of Congress to require of the President not only information, but 
reasons for removals from office. 

The committee consisted of Messrs. Benton, Macon, Van Buren, Dickerson, 
Johnson, and White. The bill was not called up, in consequence of the ill 
health of Mr. Macon, who moved the raising of the committee. 

In 1830, the subject was discussed in the celebrated debate upon Foote's 
resolutions. During the session, Mr. Holmes, a Senator from Maine, offered a 
series of resolutions expressive of his views respecting the subject of removals. 
One of the resolutions called upon the President " to communicate to the Senate 
the number, names, and offices of the officers removed by him since the last session 
ol the Senate, with the reasons for each removal. The resolution was postponed 
indefinitely — 24 to 21. Some of the other resolutions contained statements that 
must have been offensive to the majority, and for which they could not vote : 
hence, no inference can be drawn from the vote to postpone that those so voting 
would be opposed, on a proper occasion, to a call for information. 

Mr. DAWSON. Which of the resolutions was offensive ? 

Mr. BRADBURY. That which undertook to pass judgment upon the 
President, and to condemn his conduct. 

Mr. MANGUM. Will the Senator be so obliging as to read the yeas and 
nays? 

Mr. BRADBURY. They are not given in the book which I have in my 
hand, or I would comply with the request of the Senator with pleasure. 

Mr. DAWSON. I have them here. Will the Senator allow the Secretary 
to read them ? 

They were then read by the Secretary. 

Mr. BRADBURY. It assuredly could not be expected that any friend of the 
Administration of President Jackson (such, for instance, as the distinguished 
Senator from Missouri) would vote for a series of resolutions assaulting that 
Administration. 

Mr. BADGER. I beg leave to say that the motion was to postpone indefi- 
nitely. A gentleman who was desirous of passing any of the resolutions, strip- 
ping them of their offensive matter, would of course vote against their postpone- 
ment. 

Mr. BRADBURY. I presume those who voted in favor of the postpone- 
ment were opposed to the resolutions as they stood, and those who voted against 
it were in favor of them. And I am happy to find that there were several 
distinguished gentlemen who occupied seats on the other side of the Chamber — 
some of them now in the Cabinet or members of this body — who then recognized 
the right to call upon the President for reasons even for his conduct. 

There is another circumstance which distinguishes the present call from that 
of 1830. During the debate at that time, the position was maintained that a 



10 

change in the chief executive office of the Union, by the people, would be 
appropriately followed by changes in the subordinates. No imputation of dere- 
liction from duty was then charged upon the officer removed. 

In 1835, the attention of Congress was again called to this subject by the 
distinguished Senator from South Carolina, [Mr. Calhoun,] who moved the 
appointment of a committee to inquire into the extent of the Executive patronage ; 
the circumstances which have contributed to its great increase of late ; the expe- 
diency and practicability of reducing the same, and the means of such reduction. 
The committee was raised, and their chairman [Mr. Calhoun] accompanied 
their luminous report with two bills, one of which, entitled "A bill to repeal the 
first and second sections of an act to limit the term of office of certain officers 
therein named, and for other purposes," contained a section similar in its pro- 
visions to that which I have just read from the bill reported in 1826, requiring 
that the President should send to the Senate with the nomination to fill a vacancy 
occasioned by removal from office, a statement of the reasons for such removal. 

The bill passed the Senate at that session ; and on the question of its passage 
to a third reading, the vote stood 26 to 15. On its final passage, on the 31st 
of February, the yeas were 3 1 , nays 16. Amongst the yeas are Messrs. Benton, 
Calhoun, Clay, Mangum, and Webster, now members of the Senate ; and 
Messrs. Clayton and Ewing, members of the Cabinet of President Taylor. 

Mr. CLAY, (in his seat.) I would vote for it again. 

Mr. B R ADB UR Y. I understand the honorable Senator to say that he would 
vote for the bill again. That bill goes to the full extent to justify the call we now 
make ; and I am happy to have this high authority to appeal to. I trust it will 
be conclusive on the other side of the Chamber. We have, then, a right to 
demand not only information, but reasons. 

Mr. CLAY. Not so. Will the honorable gentleman allow me to protest 
against his logic ? I voted for that bill to make it the law of the land ; and I 
would vote for it again to make it the law of the land, covering the present 
Administration and all future Administrations. But that is a very different case 
from a resolution, which is not a law, calling for information, instead of its being 
demanded by a valid enactment of the Legislature. 

Mr. BRADBURY. If it is an infringement upon the constitutional rights of 
the President to call for information or reasons touching his exercise of the power 
of removal, a bill passed by Congress cannot remove the impediment. If both 
Houses can pass the bill, the Senate can make the call. I therefore ask the 
honorable Senator, if there is, in his judgment, any constitutional impediment 
in the way of calling for the information sought by the resolution. 1 understand 
the distinguished Senator to assent to the position that we have such right. If 
the President possessed the power of removal conferred by the Constitution by a 
specific grant, in such manner that the Senate had no right to call upon him, 
an act of Congress could not give the right against the provisions of the Consti- 
tution. I am now considering the question of authority, and not that of expedi- 
ency. I have, then, in the declaration of the Senator in favor of such a law, a 
full recognition of the right of the Senate to pass the resolution. I think, then, 
in view of this high authority, I may assume that the Senate possesses the right. 

It may be proper here to remark, that I find amongst those who voted against 
the bill to which I referred a few moments since, the names of several distinguished 
men, one of them now a member of this body — the Senator from Alabama. 
They may have voted against the bill for other reasons than any objection to 
the section to which I have referred. They may have been opposed to the repeal 
of the provision prescribing four years' tenure to certain offices. How the fact was, 



11 

I will not undertake to say; but certain it is, that every individual who voted for 

the bill recognized the authority of the Senate to make this call. In many of 

the cases to which I have referred, and in both of the bills reported to the Senate, 

the President is called upon for the reasons for making removals. This is going 

much further than to ask for information ; and I can well imagine there might 

be some delicacy in demanding of another branch of the Government the reasons 

for the exercise of its power in a particular manner, while no such objection 

would arise against a request for information. 

While upon this subject, I beg leave to refer to authority which will have 

great weight, if it is not absolutely conclusive, upon the opposite side of the 

Chamber. I mean the deliberate and matured opinion of the members of the 

present Cabinet, who will have occasion to advise with the President on the subject, 

and who may be supposed to express his sentiments. I will first read a short 

extract from a speech in the Senate, in 1835, by the distinguished Senator 

from Delaware, now Secretary of State. He says : 

"The Senate ought to know the grounds on which removals are made. If the President 
should tell the Senate it was on account of political principles, he, ill his place as a Senator, 
would vote to reject every nomination made to Jill the place, ad infinitum. He would ask 
whether they were acting for party effect, or as Senators of Die country?" 

Again, in another speech, Mr. Clayton said: 

" The only control the Senate had over the power of removal, was the right of rejection. And 
if a meritorious officer, who had discharged his duty with fidelity and good faith, should be 
removed, the only remedy was to reject the partisan who might be nominated by the President to fill 
his place, and this he would do — rejecting the first, second, third, and so on AD INFFNI- 
TUM. Such was the maxim he had laid down as the rule of his conduct, and without information 
he should not know how to act." 

In the same debate, the present Secretary of the Interior, then a Senator from 

.Ohio, inquired significantly: 

" Must not the Senate, then, when their act removes an individual from a public trust — when 
they are the active instruments, not the passive spectators, of his degradation — should they not, 
as conscientious men, in discharge of a high trust, affecting both individual character and the 
public welfare, act upon their own responsibility, and be governed by the dictates of their own 
judgment? What an idle pageant would this body be — what a solemn farce its advisory power over 
these acts of the Executive — if the views of some honorable Senators should be followed, and the 
Senate should be confined in their inquiry simply to the qualification of the proposed successor !" 

Now, sir, if we are to follow the authority of the officer standing next in rank 
to the President in the executive department of the Government, it would be our 
duty to reject every nomination which has been presented to fill vacancies occa- 
sioned by removals, unless the President furnishes us with the information 
demanded. This authority may be felt to be obligatory by gentlemen sympa- 
thizing with the Administration. May I not hope, therefore, that they will aid 
in passing the resolution, so that they may not feel constrained by the authority 
of the Cabinet to reject the President's nominations "ad infinitum V f May I not 
rely upon their aid under circumstances so exceedingly peculiar? 

Is it said the inquiry relates to executive business, and should be consid- 
ered in secret session? I answer, that the information we seek is of a public 
character. If I am right in my supposition, false charges have been made and 
filed in the executive departments, affecting the public and private character of 
our fellow-citizens, by which a pretext has been furnished for driving them in 
disgrace from public office. The President has not kept silent. By his 
announcement of the grounds upon which removals should be made, the removal 
has been converted into a public assault upon the character of the officers dis- 
placed ; and the means of vindication should be as public as the assault. I have 
such respect for the President that I believe he would scorn the idea of screening 
any libeler who should lend himself to the disgraceful employment of fabricating 



12 

unfounded accusations wherewith to blast the reputation of his neighbors, for the 
sordid purpose of securing to himself their places. No; he would say, as every 
honest man would say, let these things be brought out to the light of open day 
— let us have light. Let us know precisely how these things are. If office- 
holders have been guilty of a dereliction of duty — if they have been wanting in 
integrity, capacity, or fidelity — they ought to be ejected, and their places filled 
by better men. But let us not be guilty of the injustice, when men are con- 
demned and sentenced publicly without trial, of withholding or keeping secret 
the means of their vindication. No friend of the Administration should ask this 
of the Senate; and if asked, it will, I believe, be indignantly refused. 

Mr. BADGER. Will the honorable Senator from Maine give way to a 
motion to adjourn ? 

Mr. BRADBURY. I shall have finished what I have to say in a short 
time, and I will not trouble the Senate to adjourn. 

Removals from office under the Administration of President Jackson have 
always been a fruitful topic of remark. He came into the Presidency after a- 
struggle which convulsed the country, and finding the offices generally held by 
his opponents, some of them were removed, and his friends put in their places. 
Upon this, the cry of proscription was raised, and the press teemed with the 
most bitter and indignant denunciations. 

No language was too strong, no rebuke too scathing, no term of reproach too 

gross, to be heaped upon the head of the venerable President, for having removed 

certain officers of an opposite political party, and appointed his political friends 

in their places, still leaving in office a great body of the former. As an example 

of the style of remark which was adopted on that occasion, I will read brief 

extracts from a speech made in the Senate of the United States by a Senator 

from Missouri, Mr. Barton. He said : 

" We did not dream of this reckless proscription for opinion's sake that now makes the land 
look pale! — of this ravaging persecution for the exercise of the high and sacred right of election, 
which now tears the vitals of this republic. It never entered our imagination that a combination, 
guided by the fiends of party discipline, office-hunting, and vote auctioneering, could so soon con- 
vert the high and happy privilege of free elections into a species of contest for victory 
and vengeance, and the presidential elections of our country into the sacking of cities by the troops 
ofSuxoan-ow, and the offices, and the honors, and the emoluments of our country, into the mere 
spoils of barbarian war!" 

Again, in the same speech, he compares the removals " to the sacking of 
provinces by Tartar hordes, and the offices, and honors, and emoluments of our 
Government, as the spoils of Scythian war ! And wo to that minister who has 
advised the President to such an anti-republican course ! It were better for 
him that he were fitted for Heaven, and a mill-stone tied around his neck, 
and he thrown into the Potomac! The days of the present delusion will pass 
away, and the votaries of constitutional liberty be again seen in high places." 

And now that the " votaries of constitutional liberty," whose denunciations 
of proscription have so often been heard, are seen in the high places, I propose 
to compare and contrast the conduct of President Jackson's administration, upon 
the subject of removals, with what is now going forward, and to see how the 
pledges which have been given have been redeemed. 

It was charged against President Jackson, that when he had been in office 
a year, the reports of the executive departments, together with the reports of 
the Postmaster General, bore witness to the removal of more than six hundred 
officers during the first year of his administration, and that the removals from 
the deputy post offices alone, from March 4, 1829, to March 4, 1830, amounted 
to the number of 491 ! I presume that there were removals of subordinates not 
embraced in the estimate first named. 



13 

It was this proscription of more than six hundred officers in a year — of four 
hundred and ninety-one postmasters alone in a year — which brought upon 
President's Jackson's head the denunciations to which 1 have alluded. How 
stand the facts now? 

It is difficult for me to ascertain with accuracy what has been done ; for the 
organs of the Administration in this city (and it is understood there were two 
or more) did not choose to give, or could not find space for, a full record of all 
the victims that fell beneath the axe of an Administration that was to " pro- 
scribe proscription." 

The Postmaster General furnishes some data in his report. He says : 

The number of postmasters appointed within the year ending June 30, 1849, was 6,330. Of 
that number — 

2,782 were appointed in consequence of resignations; 
183 were appointed in consequence of deaths; 
284 were appointed in consequence of changes of site of office; 
2,103 were appointed in consequence of removals; 

11 were appointed in consequence of commissions expired and not renewed; 
26 were appointed in consequence of commissions renewed; 

23 were appointed in consequence of becoming presidential, by income exceeding $1,000. 
921 were appointed in consequence of new offices. 

Two thousand one hundred and three appointed in consequence of removals 
alone for the year ending June 30, 1849! That period embraces four months under 
the present Administration, and eight under that of the preceding. I am informed 
that very few of the removals were made prior to the 4th of March. If we 
assume the number to be a hundred, we then have, during less than four months 
of the present anti-proscriptive Administration, about two thousand removals 
in a single department ! In that department alone the removals were at the 
rate of five hundred per month ! — more in a single month than under the 
whole of the first year under President Jackson ! If the work has gone on at the 
same rate since the 30th of June, we must have some five thousand in the Post 
Office alone. Whether this is the case or not, we have not the means to know. 
A response to the resolution will give it. 

I think it due to remark, that in some of the departments, I believe a more 
liberal policy has been pursued, and that there has been an effort fairly to 
observe the pledges upon which the Administration came into power. I desire 
to do no injustice to the President, or any member of the Cabinet. In other 
departments, from the best means of judging we have, a clean sweep appears 
to have been made. I know that in the State which I have the honor to represent 
in part, nearly every officer holding his office under the President's appointment, 
has been removed. I now recollect but a single exception. There may be 
others, but if so, very few indeed. There are hardly exceptions enough to 
prove the rule. No one acquainted with the individuals thus removed, will say 
that they deserve the imputation of want of honesty, capacity, or integrity. I 
know most of them personally, and it is but an act of justice that I should say 
they are men of honor and character, justly entitling them to confidence and 
respect. 

In regard to what has been done in other States, I will not undertake to speak 
with confidence. To what extent this work of" reform" has been carried may 
be better known to others than myself. I have seen statements which swell 
the grand aggregate of removals, since the accession to power of the present 
Administration, to many thousands — so many that I will not repeat the number 
lest I should do injustice. I seek by the resolution to obtain accurate information 
on this point. 

It is a circumstance that cannot fail to arrest attention, that while the Admin- 



14 

istration has at its head a President who won the reputation which led the way 
to the Presidency, in the late war with Mexico, the veterans who sustained him 
in that conflict seem to have been marked for proscription with fatal precision. 

I will instance the gallant Lane, of Indiana, dismissed from the office of Gov- 
ernor of Oregon, bestowed upon him by the late President, with the approbation 
of the whole country, after his return from honorable service in that war. Can 
the honorable Senator from Indiana now near me [Mr. Bright] inform the Senate 
of any just cause for this act of proscription ? 

Colonel Weller, one of the first volunteers for the war, after faithful service 
under the immediate command of General Taylor, and Colonel Geary, another 
brave and distinguished officer, share the same fate. 

The honorable Senator from Mississippi, now before me, [Mr. Foote,] will 
bear witness that some of the most devoted patriots have been immolated in his 
State. Captain Blythe, upon the intelligence of the perilous situation of our 
army, was one of the foremost to hasten to its rescue ; and his reward for his 
patriotism has been a dismissal from office. 

I mi<dit refer to Colonel Butler, of Florida, whose brilliant services under 
General Harrison and General Jackson, and a long life of fidelity to his country, 
have proved of no avail to save him from the axe ; and to Mr. Haile, of New 
York, dangerously wounded at the battle of Lundy's Lane, and left for dead 
upon the field, removed from an office bestowed upon him for his merits and his 
sufferings, and to which his claims had been respected by every Administration 
from his appointment to the present. 

But it is not my purpose to go into the consideration of particular cases. 
Time would fail me should I attempt it. I wish to direct attention to the GRAND 
RESULT. The evidence of the extent to which the work of proscription has 
been carried, is on all sides ; and it is worthy of notice, that while officers are 
removed who are invaluable to the public, some of the departments here are 
calling upon Congress for additional force. I beg leave to suggest, Mr. Pres- 
ident, that it might be wise economy to restore the former efficient public 
servants. 

Let us know, Mr. President, the extent to which this system of removals has 
been carried. Let us understand precisely what has been done, and the evidence, 
if not the reasons, upon which the policy has been pursued. 

Are these removals made upon the ground that the officers removed were 
political partisans ? 

Is it not notorious that the new appointments are from the most active and 
zealous partisans to be found ? — from those who claim the offices as a reward for 
their partisan services? Political partisanship a disqualification! It is the 
very evidence that usually makes up the case upon which the appointment is 
demanded! 

Is it to punish interference with elections ? Why, then, are officers retained 
after their notorious interference in favor of the powers that be ? 

Is it to equalize the offices ? What principle of equality has been regarded 
States where Democrats are expelled, and Whigs alone are appointed to every 
P^ce of profit or honor? 

Is this sweeping proscription of one party, and this undiscriminating reward 
of another, the no-party entertainment to which the President and his friends 
invited the people previous to his election ? 

Is this what was meant by the declaration, " In no case can I permit myself to 
be the candidate of any party, or yield myself to party schemes?" 

Is this the way in which it was intended to carry out the distinct and unequiv- 



15 

ocal assurance, "The good of all parties, and the national good, would be my 
great and absorbing aim ?" 

Is this the way it was designed to redeem the pledge, "Should I be elected 
to that high office, (the Presidency,) I should deem it to be my duty, and most 
certainly claim the right, to look to the Constitution and the high interests 
of our common country, and not to the principles of a party, for my rules of 
action ?" 

Is this the way it was intended to carry out the assurance, " I have no private 
purposes to accomplish — no party projects to build up — no enemies to punish — 
nothing to serve but my country ?" 

And is it the fact that the Whig party and the Administration, after all their 
professions and pledges upon the subject of proscription, have confessedly 
adopted in practice the doctrine so loudly reprobated and denounced by them, 
" that the offices of the country are the spoils of party victory, to be parceled out 
amongst the retainers of the successful party ?" 

If so, let it be avowed, and I will not press the resolution. If any friend of 
the Administration will, in his place here, on its behalf, candidly acknowledge 
that these pledges and professions, made previous to the election, and reaffirmed in 
the Inaugural Address, have been violated, and that " Democrats are removed 
because they are Democrats, and not for moral or official delinquency," — if he 
will make these frank admissions, and thus relieve honorable and honest men 
who have suffered proscription for their political opinions from the unjust 
imputation of dishonesty, infidelity, or incapacity, I repeat, I will not ask for the 
adoption of the resolution. 

Before resuming my seat, I desire, Mr. President, to be distinctly understood 
upon one point. It is not the policy of making removals that I assail or call in 
question. It is the inconsistency between the professions and practice of the 
party in power — the breach of faith solemnly pledged to know no party, and to 
make removals only for cause, followed by a general expulsion of Democrats, 
with an imputation of delinquency thrown upon them. It is this of which I 
complain, and not of the propriety of an administration employing those favorable 
to its principles to carry out its measures. 

Having thus shown, Mr. President, as I trust to the satisfaction of the Senate, 
that the information requested by the resolution is necessary, that we can 
appropriately ask for it, and that it is due alike to the President and to those 
whose reputation should be vindicated from the imputation arising from their 
dismissal from the public service, I will trespass no longer upon the attention 
of the Senate. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



011 897 623 fi 



/r- 



